Glad We Met

When was the last time you truly connected with someone at work—listened fully, felt understood, and came away more energized than before? In Glad We Met: The Art and Science of 1:1 Meetings, organizational psychologist Steven G. Rogelberg asks this deceptively simple question to expose what might be the most undervalued tool in leadership: the one-on-one meeting.

Rogelberg argues that while most managers dread meetings, they unknowingly miss the most powerful type—the regular, purposeful conversation with individual team members. His research confirms that one-on-ones are not an administrative task or an add-on; they are the work of leadership itself. Drawing on extensive organizational studies, interviews with top executives, and decades of meeting science, he reveals how high-quality 1:1s dramatically shape engagement, trust, performance, and even life satisfaction.

Why One-on-Ones Matter

The book opens with a staggering observation: billions of meetings occur daily worldwide, with at least 200–500 million being one-on-ones. Yet nearly half are rated as subpar by participants. The gap isn’t in quantity—it’s in quality. Rogelberg’s data show that while managers think their 1:1s are going well, direct reports often disagree. This blind spot costs organizations billions of dollars and erodes connection. The author sets out to bridge this gap through an evidence-based playbook.

His case rests on seven outcomes linked to effective 1:1s: stronger engagement, team success, manager effectiveness, trust, diversity and inclusion, career growth, and even personal well-being. One-on-ones, he explains, are the single most efficient way to combine structure with humanity—meeting both the practical needs (alignment, clarity, coaching) and personal needs (respect, trust, support) of employees. When done right, they make work feel meaningful rather than mechanical.

Meetings as an Investment, Not a Chore

Many leaders resist scheduling more meetings, but Rogelberg reframes them as strategic investments. He calculates that global one-on-ones represent over $1.25 billion in daily labor costs—yet this figure reflects the potential return as much as the expense. Effective meetings reduce turnover, improve communication, and increase alignment, saving time in the long run. Poor meetings, by contrast, waste resources and disengage employees.

To help leaders see one-on-ones as high-value interactions, Rogelberg positions them as engines for organizational culture. A 1:1 is a microcosm of leadership philosophy: if a manager listens, builds trust, and fosters growth here, those behaviors reinforce across the team. He notes that skipping 1:1s doesn’t just delay progress—it sends a message that employees are not worth a manager’s time. Absence communicates apathy.

The Balance of Structure and Flexibility

The heart of Rogelberg’s model is balance. An effective 1:1 blends rigor and empathy, short-term action and long-term vision, consistency and personalization. He urges managers to approach these conversations as both science and art—guided by behavioral research but tailored to human nuance. The 1:1 becomes a leadership micro-skill where preparation, psychological safety, curiosity, and feedback interlock.

The author breaks down the spectrum managers must navigate: structure without rigidity, cadence without monotony, and agenda without domination. These meetings, he insists, should belong to the team member, not the manager. The leader’s role is to orchestrate—not dictate. It means asking questions like “What’s on your mind?” or “How can I help?” and listening more than speaking—a ratio Rogelberg quantifies as 50–90% of airtime belonging to the employee.

The Science Behind the Practice

Rogelberg brings credibility from his prior bestsellers and empirical research. His studies span thousands of knowledge workers and executives across organizations like Google, Deloitte, Marriott, and Facebook. He synthesizes findings from psychology, coaching, and communication theory. For instance, he cites the Pygmalion Effect—our expectations shape outcomes—to remind managers that entering a meeting believing in someone’s potential directly influences their performance.

He also weaves in the concept of meeting flow, based on Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s work on “flow states.” Scheduling 1:1s thoughtfully (clustered together, not scattered) boosts productivity by minimizing task-switching. Even environmental details—lighting, noise, color, or air quality—can affect emotional tone and cognitive engagement. Rogelberg’s scientific lens turns workplace routine into behavioral design.

Human Connection in a Hybrid World

Beyond logistics and frameworks, the book’s emotional core is human connection. Rogelberg echoes thinkers like Adam Grant and Carol Dweck (both featured in the book’s endorsements): people thrive not just from tasks completed but from relationships nurtured. Even remote employees crave visibility and empathy. One-on-one meetings give voice to those who might otherwise remain unseen.

Whether in a traditional office, over a video platform, or on a walking meeting, Rogelberg argues that space matters. A quiet, comfortable, private environment promotes psychological safety and openness. Leaders must “meet people where they are”—literally and figuratively. A coffee shop chat or an outdoor stroll can dissolve hierarchy and unlock candid conversation.

A Practical Blueprint for Better Leadership

Throughout Glad We Met, Rogelberg offers tools—templates, quizzes, and checklists—for scheduling, agenda creation, and feedback. But the deeper message isn’t mechanical; it’s moral. He concludes that effective 1:1s are an expression of leadership values: respect, inclusion, curiosity, and service. They embody empathy in action. As Jane Austen’s quote reminds us, “It isn’t what we say or think that defines us, but what we do.” Holding meaningful conversations isn’t optional—it’s how leaders live their values.

In short, Rogelberg shows that the heartbeat of great leadership is conversation. A 1:1 isn’t a meeting—it’s a moment of stewardship, where time becomes a gift, trust becomes currency, and growth becomes inevitable. Done well, these encounters transform teams, cultures, and lives. The measure of an executive, Rogelberg suggests, is simple: you are as good as your last one-on-one.

Rogelberg is unequivocal: if you manage people, one-on-ones aren’t optional—they are the job itself. He calls them the leadership crucible, where your effectiveness is forged conversation by conversation. No amount of open-door policies or quick hallway chats can substitute for intentional, recurring personal meetings that anchor relationships and progress.

The Manager’s Blind Spot

Most managers fall prey to what Rogelberg describes as the “fundamental attribution error”—we misinterpret silence or disengagement from employees as an internal flaw rather than the result of our own neglect. When leaders skip 1:1s or only meet “when there’s a problem,” employees assume they are undervalued. The absence of meetings communicates more than their presence.

His research reveals that regular 1:1s nearly triple engagement scores compared to managers who rarely meet with their teams. Studies from Gallup and Harvard Business Review back this claim: employees who have frequent one-on-ones are 67% less likely to disengage. The implication is clear—connectivity drives productivity.

The Ripple Effect of Trust

When you meet privately with someone, you signal care. That small act reverberates. Rogelberg uses Jack Welch’s maxim—“Before you are a manager, success is about growing yourself. When you become a manager, success is about growing others.” 1:1s make this philosophy tangible. They build trust, clarity, and psychological safety, which cascade into team cohesion and lower turnover.

Even the most informal conversation offers an opportunity to fulfill universal human needs for being seen and heard. Whether the employee is a software engineer or a frontline laborer, those positive micro-interactions foster the belief that their work matters. In essence, 1:1s humanize hierarchy.

Rogelberg reframes management from supervision to stewardship—the idea that your job is not to control outcomes, but to nurture capacity. Every 1:1 is an investment in someone’s future self.

Making Time Creates Time

Ironically, managers fear the calendar load of adding one-on-ones, but Rogelberg’s data show they ultimately save time. Regular check-ins reduce ad hoc interruptions, clarify priorities, and prevent cascading misalignments. When roles and objectives are consistent, fewer emergencies surface later.

His studies with technology firms demonstrate that teams with frequent one-on-ones post higher productivity and lower burnout. Even short sessions—a 20-minute weekly chat—can influence morale and engagement more than hour-long group briefings. These aren’t nice-to-haves; they are efficiency engines disguised as empathy.

From Transaction to Transformation

Rogelberg’s central message resonates: 1:1s elevate “small deeds into great acts” (echoing Lao Tzu). Each meeting, deliberately done, becomes a seedbed for overall organizational growth. When leaders commit to them, they send a visible signal of support, inclusion, and accountability. If skip-level executives adopted similar habits, Rogelberg muses, global leadership could be more peaceful and prosperous.

Simply put, you don’t lead through memos—you lead through meetings focused on listening, coaching, and acknowledgment. The best leaders become great not by what they declare at the podium, but by what they communicate across the table.

When managers implement new one-on-ones, employees often react with apprehension—what’s the catch? Rogelberg explores this fear in Chapter 2, citing studies showing that rumor mills thrive in ambiguity. Without clear framing, 70% of workplace communication occurs through informal grapevines, distorting messages like the global children’s game 'telephone.'

The Psychology of Fear

Fear stems from uncertainty. Employees wonder if 1:1s are performance traps or managerial surveillance. Rogelberg urges leaders to preempt those anxieties by launching 1:1s transparently: explain the purpose, link them to organizational and personal values, and emphasize partnership over policing.

Three Framing Principles

• Announce collectively—introduce the initiative to the whole team at once to ensure consistent messaging and avoid singling people out.
• Connect to shared values—tie one-on-ones to trust, inclusion, and growth within the organization, showing longevity.
• Clarify logistics—cadence, agenda flexibility, and confidentiality to reduce anxiety.

A Manager’s Reassurance Toolkit

Rogelberg offers sample dialogues for common concerns—'Will this replace team meetings?' 'Are you checking my performance?' 'Can I skip sessions if busy?' Each response centers curiosity and care, positioning meetings as opportunities for two-way feedback, not directives. His scripts encourage inviting employee voice ('Your feedback shapes how we meet'), establishing confidentiality, and respecting autonomy ('We’ll evolve cadence together').

This approach echoes Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety: fear disappears when employees feel they can speak up without repercussion. Framing meetings as collaborative rather than corrective redefines the power dynamic—turning apprehension into anticipation.

Ultimately, Rogelberg reframes communication as culture. When people talk more openly, they don’t just reduce fear—they multiply trust. Fearful silence is costly; transparent dialogue is free and exponentially powerful.

How often should you meet to sustain trust without micromanaging? Rogelberg’s answer blends science and pragmatism: weekly is best, biweekly is good, monthly is survival mode. His longitudinal studies show that employees in weekly one-on-ones rate their managers 10% higher and show greater engagement and satisfaction.

Why Planning Matters

Without a defined cadence, hidden biases distort who gets attention. The similarity-attraction bias leads managers to meet more with people like themselves, and the propinquity effect favors those physically closer (out of sight, out of mind). A structured routine prevents inequality and promotes inclusion.

The Decision Tree of Frequency

Weekly meetings (around 30 minutes) yield the most engagement and fastest feedback loops. Biweekly sessions (45–60 minutes) can work well for experienced or autonomous employees. Monthly meetings (60–90 minutes) offer minimal impact and risk recency bias—concentrating on what happened last, not what mattered most. Rogelberg warns that long gaps break momentum and invite misunderstandings.

He lays out practical factors for tailoring cadence: team size, tenure, remote status, asynchronous tools, and trust levels. For new managers or remote teams, weekly 1:1s are indispensable. For long-tenured relationships, biweekly may suffice—but always reevaluate.

The takeaway: predictability breeds psychological safety. Employees thrive when conversations are reliable, not sporadic. Consistency is care expressed in calendar form.

(As comparison, Kim Scott’s Radical Candor similarly advocates frequent “touchbase” meetings to build trust through continuous micro-feedback.) Rogelberg’s nuance adds the scientific underpinning—frequency isn’t about control, it’s about rhythm. Regularity communicates respect, reliability, and commitment.

Scheduling isn’t just logistics—it’s psychology. Rogelberg borrows Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow to show that how you plan meetings directly affects concentration and satisfaction. A scattered calendar kills momentum; clustering meetings in blocks preserves uninterrupted time for deep work.

The Flow Advantage

Through studies with developers and knowledge workers, Rogelberg found that people identify afternoons free of meetings as their most productive. When meetings are grouped early in the day, employees experience higher focus, fewer task switches, and greater sense of control. Clustering—even with microbreaks inserted—minimizes cognitive fatigue.

Microbreaks and Boundaries

He recommends shortening standard 30-minute appointments to 25 minutes and scheduling reflective breaks between clusters. Protect those flow periods by blocking calendar space and treating them as sacred. This rhythm gives both leaders and teams uninterrupted zones for creative or strategic thought.

Some individuals prefer spacing out meetings to decompress and take notes—an acceptable alternative when managed consciously. The principle remains: design for attention rather than exhaustion. Rogelberg’s mantra is simple yet radical—stop letting meetings happen by accident; engineer them intentionally.

“Where humans gather, matters.” Environment is the hidden variable of productivity—the space and sequence of your meeting schedule shape how much you and your team can think, create, and care.

Behind every effective one-on-one lies intentional design. Rogelberg’s research found that half of all 1:1s use no agenda, and those led solely by the manager rated the lowest in value. The best results occur when the employee co-creates or leads the agenda—a symbolic transfer of voice and ownership.

Two Styles That Work

Rogelberg identifies the Listing Approach—where each person writes topics to discuss and compares lists at the start—and the Core Question Approach—where the manager poses a few broad prompts like “What obstacles are slowing you down?” or “What do you need from me?” Both promote empathy and structure without suffocating flexibility. Whatever the format, agendas should mix tactical and personal focuses: reviewing progress, recognizing wins, and exploring long-term growth.

Escaping the Status Trap

Most 1:1s devolve into status updates—a parade of tasks rather than meaning. Rogelberg’s antidote is dedicating part of each meeting to future-oriented topics. Whether 10 minutes per session or every fourth meeting focused on career conversations, that consistent horizon prevents tunnel vision. It shifts 1:1s from transactional to developmental.

He also warns against overloading agendas—it’s better to discuss fewer items deeply than skim many superficially. Preparation notes, templates, and post-meeting summaries maintain continuity and ensure progress isn’t lost between sessions.

In Rogelberg’s philosophy, agenda creation itself is a gesture of respect—it signals care, readiness, and intentionality. A prepared question says: “Your time matters enough for me to plan how to spend it.”

Every one-on-one has two dimensions: the transactional (what you do) and the emotional (how you feel while doing it). Rogelberg calls these the practical and personal needs. Practical needs include tasks, goals, and alignment. Personal needs involve feeling respected, trusted, and valued. Good managers satisfy both simultaneously.

Five Core Behaviors

• Listen and Respond with Empathy: hear to understand, not reply; paraphrase, probe, and acknowledge emotions sincerely.
• Communicate Authentically and Transparently: give feedback that is specific, behavioral, and timely—balanced between praise and improvement.
• Involve Directs: ask for opinions and co-create solutions; participation enhances commitment.
• Be Kind and Supportive: offer help without fostering dependency; accountability is kindness in practice.
• Demonstrate Vulnerability: share small truths or mistakes, ask for help, and model humility; vulnerability breeds trust.

These behaviors might sound simple but require genuine attention. When managers apply them across conversations, they construct a climate of psychological safety where employees willingly share problems before they explode. Research cited shows companies with high psychological safety outperform financially because teams communicate freely.

The result: meetings shift from correction to co-creation—from “How are you performing?” to “How can we succeed together?” Compassion becomes a management strategy.

A 1:1’s value isn’t measured in words exchanged but in actions taken afterward. Rogelberg notes that many managers assume follow-through failures reflect laziness. His research says otherwise: people break commitments for seven reasons—lack of clarity, memory, time, priorities, skill, or obstacles—not necessarily motivation.

Creating Clarity and Accountability

He advocates shared documentation—a short 24-hour post-meeting summary capturing action items, deadlines, and mutual promises. This prevents ambiguity and forms a psychological contract. Both sides can use it to prepare for the next 1:1 and track growth. Managers who document follow-up actions are perceived as more effective and caring.

Motivating Action

Borrowing from executive coach Marshall Goldsmith, Rogelberg proposes practical tools like daily “Did I do my best to…” questions—scoring oneself on key behaviors to sustain improvement. He adds the concept of accountability partners and visible progress tracking. Commitment thrives when it’s shared and seen.

Owning Mistakes and Learning Forward

When commitments falter, leaders should apologize, probe why, and refine systems—not blame. Encourage candid conversation about blockers. This transforms accountability from punishment into partnership. In Rogelberg’s terms, consistency is kindness; reminders, empathy, and rescheduling are leadership gifts.

The conversation doesn’t end when the meeting does. Execution is the echo of trust—it tells employees their voices weren’t just heard; they mattered enough to act upon.

Rogelberg closes with a philosophical turn: great organizations don’t just schedule one-on-ones—they live them. These meetings embody core values like respect, inclusion, integrity, and curiosity. Whether at Intel (“One Intel”), Adobe (“Genuine, Exceptional, Innovative, Involved”), or TIAA (“Put the client first; value people”), he shows that 1:1s operationalize culture by connecting ideals to daily behavior.

Conversations as Values in Action

A leader’s values are visible only through behavior. Holding a thoughtful 1:1 says more about your integrity than any corporate slogan. Rogelberg compares them to organizational rituals—small but sacred acts that reinforce belonging. He advocates creating company-wide systems for 1:1s: setting training, templates, and tracking engagement. Cisco leads with such a model, linking check-ins to performance and growth analytics.

Leadership Through Stewardship

Ultimately, Rogelberg’s argument transcends efficiency. He positions one-on-ones as moral practice. They express humility, generosity, and service—the opposite of bureaucratic control. Each interaction reflects what you value most: people or processes. Choosing to meet regularly is a declaration that relationships are worth your time.

“It isn’t what we say or think that defines us, but what we do.” Rogelberg’s conclusion mirrors Jane Austen’s insight: the true measure of a leader isn’t their vision statement—it’s the consistency of their conversations.

He urges leaders to view 1:1s not as calendar events but as commitments to human flourishing. Investing twenty-five hours a year per person might sound costly, but Rogelberg reframes it as priceless: a direct line between time spent and culture sustained.